Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. -this civil revision application has been filed by plaintiff no.2 in a pending suit for eviction of the defendants opposite-party nos.1 and 2 from certain premises who are in possession of the same as tenants. 2. The plaintiff no.1 the mother of plaintiff no.2 has been made opposite party no.3. According to the petitioners case an order under section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been passed on the 12th July, 1976 directing the defendants to deposit, in court, arrears of rent and future rent. Admittedly the defendants have made the deposits in time, but according to the case of the petitioner the deposits are not regular inasmuch as the entire rent except for a period of nine days should have been deposited in the name of the petitioner (plaintiff no.2), which has not been done. There has been a settlement amongst the family members of the plaintiffs including the brother of the petitioners who are not parties of the suit, where the premises in occupation of the defendants have been exclusively allotted to the share of the petitioner. It is said that due to this arrangement, which is known to the defendants, they should have deposited the rent for nine days to the credit of plaintiff no.1 (opposite party no.3) and the balance in the name of the petitioner (plaintiff no.2) and as this has not been done, the defendants have defaulted in making proper deposits incurring the liability of their written statement being struck off. The court below has overruled the objection raised by the petitioner mentioned above, and the petitioner has challenged the order in the present application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Mr. Shashi Kumar Sinha appearing for the petitioner has contended that it must be held that the defendants had full knowledge of the agreement amongst the members of the plaintiffs family, and consequently, it must be held that they have defaulted in making the deposits of arrears of rent as required by section 11-A of the Act. 4. He has relied upon certain decisions wherein it has been laid down that a tenant is bound to pay rent to a transferee from his original landlord after he is informed about the transfer. 4. He has relied upon certain decisions wherein it has been laid down that a tenant is bound to pay rent to a transferee from his original landlord after he is informed about the transfer. I am afraid, the point urged on behalf of the petitioner has to be rejected and it has to be held that the cases cited on his behalf are inapplicable. Tbe written statement of a tenant-defendant can be struck off, only on violation of an order passed under section 11-A of the Act (section 13 of the present Act) and unless it is shown that an order had been passed for making the deposits in court exclusively to the credit of the petitioner it cannot be urged that the defendants violated the order by not making the deposit in the exclusive name of the petitioner. In the cases relied upon by mr. Sinha no question of striking off the defence under section 11-A of the Act arose. They merely deal with the general liability of the tenants to pay the rent to the transferee-landlord and the consequence of amounting to a ground on which the transferee-landlord can sue for eviction of the tenant. The principle cannot be applied to a petition for striking off the defence under section 11-A of the Act Since, admittedly no orders were passed at any stage in the present suit directing the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent in the exclusive name of the petitioner, it must be held that they did not incur any liability of their written statement being struck off under section 11-A of the Act. 5. For these reason, the civil revision application fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs.50/- only. Application dismissed.